desktop environment: KDE vs Gnome

[automatic]

desktop environment: KDE vs Gnome
which one better?

-or-

other desktop enviroment?

[ZAmodeo]

It's really a matter of opinion. I have a feeling this may grow to be a very large thread... There's also Blackbox, Fluxbox, xpde, Enlightenment and others. Blackbox is very small so I'd imagine it's fast too (I've only tried the Windows version myself.) xpde is meant to look like Windows XP and I think it does, but with limited features. I like KDE personally but I'm going to try some others now that I got my compiler installed. I guess the real question is: Which one is better for you? At least with Linux you have the ability to choose and switch as you wish!:)

[gibhunter]

I tried enlightment some ways back on win98 (yes, some of those WMs are available for Windows). I didn't like it. It just took more time to navigate using Enlightment than it did using window's standard WM, plus it was even more unreliable:D Personally, I like KDE the best.

[automatic]

KDE and Gnome included in my RH8 and RH9 cd and if I'm not mistaken also included in many other distros. So i fugure that those two are the most popular.

Currently I'm using Gnome with my RH9 (default). But I also trying KDE using Knoppix CD-ROM. KDE has more color and I really like the digital clock.

What I want to know is which one better, faster in other user opinion.

As for other desktop enviroments, YES I want to more about them, where I can get the information, where to download, and most of all what makes them (the desktop enviroment) superior than others (once again: in other user opinion).

[MighMos]

I prefer Gnome, simply because I think it feals 'cleaner'. I get this clausterphobic fealing with KDE...then again, that was about 10 months ago (before 3.X)

[Hayl]

any other DE other than KDE or Gnome is (more or less) something that the user created on their own using their own choice of (some or all): Window Manager, Desktop Manager, File Manager, Launchers, and Panel(s).

for ultra minimal see my screenshot. i only run the Openbox Window Manager. No desktop manager, launchers, or panels. I use all gtk and gnome apps. i don't do this due to hardware limitations. i do it because i find a complete DE to be cumbersome.

[nextbillgates]

What I want to know is which one better, faster in other user opinion.

Which one is better is totally subjective, but in my experience, KDE is significantly faster, particularly if you prelink it.

[LrngTheHardWay]

Originally posted by gibhunter
I tried enlightment some ways back on win98 (yes, some of those WMs are available for Windows). I didn't like it. It just took more time to navigate using Enlightment than it did using window's standard WM, plus it was even more unreliable:D Personally, I like KDE the best.

I'm with ya on KDE. For my eye, it's just cleaner.

I wonder if you ripped out Internet Explorer befor testing another WM on win98. It does make a world of difference in terms of speed. Crashes a bit less too.

[Satur9]

When I first got into Linux (circa RH 7.x), the choice between KDE and GNOME was more of an issue. KDE was in v2.x, and it felt like a paper-thin Windows wannabe, with a lot less polish. I felt that GNOME (Ximian GNOME 1.2 was brand-new at the time) was the better option, because it felt unique to Linux and could be more easily dressed up in a truly great WM like Enlightenment. Linux users were split between the two.

Today, I think it's a different issue. KDE wins hands-down -- it's so slick that it's impossible to overlook. This once GNOME-only Linux user became a KDE advocate from 3.0.3 on. I think KDE 3.x has the right look, the right feel -- but most importantly, it works and it works well -- especially on a well crafted distro like SuSE 8.1/Drake 9.x. It's the ultimate desktop for Linux, IMO, unless you're into the minimalist flux/black/openbox scene.

Although, to be fair, KDE is the prefered (or default) desktop for most of the major distros, so it's hard to tell if KDE is more well thought-out than GNOME or if most distros simply put more effort into polishing the KDE desktop environ than the GNOME desktop. GNOME under SuSE 8.1 is near unusable because they didn't spend more than five minutes working on it, whereas their KDE setup is unrivaled.

I'm interested in seeing Ximian GNOME 2.2, but to be honest, I'm more than happy with KDE 3.1.

Cheers,
Tim

[Raoul_Duke]

I was torn between gnome & kde until KDE released 3.1 :cool:

The performance difference and slickness clinched it for me ;)

[bwkaz]

Go twm!

:p

[automatic]

been using knoppix - kde at the office. I think I like KDE more and more ;)

[NotQuiteSane]

As stated above, it's a matter of opinion. I like KDE myself, GNOME just feels "unfinished". however i'm getting an older laptop i'll be trying xfce on to conserve resources.

NQS

[andysimmons]

Originally posted by nextbillgates
Which one is better is totally subjective, but in my experience, KDE is significantly faster, particularly if you prelink it.

Maybe it's just the Slackware talking, but Dropline Gnome is way, way, WAY faster than any version KDE I've used. As far as what everyone says about not looking polished, I disagree completely -- check out the link to my screenshot in my sig.

I used to use KDE, but Gnome had all the good apps (gaim, Evolution, etc.) anyway, it's faster, and it comes looking nice and clean so you customize it from the ground up. KDE comes with too many useless menus, (IMO) one of the ugliest default theme/icon set combos around, and I haven't found one single KDE app that is superior to what Gnome provides. Sure, you can change the themes easy enough, install and run all the nice Gnome apps, and delete all the useless menus, but what's the point?

Anyway, didn't mean to rant :)
I actually don't usually post in this type of thread, but when I saw someone say KDE is a lot faster I had to speak up. Use whatever works best for you, but try them both. The *box window managers, waimea, and enlightenment are other good ones too).

[nextbillgates]

Maybe it's just the Slackware talking, but Dropline Gnome is way, way, WAY faster than any version KDE I've used. As far as what everyone says about not looking polished, I disagree completely -- check out the link to my screenshot in my sig.

It must be Slackware, because I have both installed on a Gentoo box I use at work, and KDE is snappier, more responsive, takes less time to load, and IMO looks better.

[plattypus1]

If you ask me, I think they're both a little bloaty and remind me too much of certain *other* OS's I've used in the past. I use Fluxbox as my WM because it's light, fast, highly configureable, and intuitive. However, a WM/DE is primarily a personal choice.

If you've got Knoppix, try typing "knoppix desktop=fluxbox (or icewm, twm, gnome, a couple others- to see 'em press f2)" to try 'em out.

[automatic]

yes one is faster than the other, one is more beautiful than the other.

I like KDE maybe more than Gnome but still have 2 account on my redhat one running gnome and the other running KDE. I think both are nicely made and fast enough.

Knoppix is a good solution for moving office huh :-)

[madcompnerd]

I prefer KDE.
It has more applications.
I like it's look better.
My computer can handle the extra bloating.
I can't stand the minimize animation in Gnome. What's up with that stupid gray box movin all slow?

I haven't used Gnome much. I tried both and was massively impressed with KDE, so I stopped using Gnome. But I like how much you can do with kicker(KDE's taskbar). I can have that run box, a systray, a clock, extensions, of course tasks, quick launch, shortcuts, and menus. I'm sure Gnome has all the same. But compared to Win, WOW!
The Linux desktop(Gnome and KDE) are really more bloated than the Win desktop. Don't shoot me. Not that they're written worse. They just have a lot more stuff. I think it's mostly useful, but there is a lot more!
Window maker is nice for old slower than tar systems.
Is there possibly one that consists of only running one application on it? Like, light to the point where you start the X server with it to run one program, like a word processor. I'm mostly just curious for curiousity's sake.

[phiber]

I'd say that KDE feels more "serious" than Gnome does; but that Gnome feels more stable. When I started using Linux with Slackware 3.6 I could hardly notice any differences between them, but since KDE advanced past 2.x I've been using it - trying new versions of Gnome "just for fun".

[Kaligraphic]

I like KDE better than gnome because it somehow feels more 'right'. I don't know exactly how to describe it, but gnome feels 'flatter'. I like the texture of KDE.

As for what I use, however, I use icewm. It's slick, cool, and loads almost instantly on my 300MHz laptop.

[Darksamurai]

During my RH 7.2 days.... I liked KDE.

Since I moved up to RH 9.0, I like GNOME all the way.

I've tweaked the crap out of GNOME with various themes and updates, and after I get to know everything there is to know about it, I'll probably go back to KDE so if I sit down at a KDE system, I don't have to waste time movin' over to GNOME to know how to use it...

I do like KDEs clock better... I decided to just put in a top panel, and put the time up there... keeps my lower toolbar looking neat.

[andysimmons]

Originally posted by madcompnerd
The Linux desktop(Gnome and KDE) are really more bloated than the Win desktop. Don't shoot me. Not that they're written worse. They just have a lot more stuff.

Save that thought for the next Windows release...

http://www.pcworld.com/news/graphics/109165-2103p032-1b.jpg

[kryrinn]

MS's new ideas for windows, and how they released the virtual desktop switcher for XP is just plain copying linux.

Not that they'd ever admit to it. according to M$, their ideas were '100% original'. if they could, they'd sue gnome and kde and every other dm for 'copying' the start button idea. and if they could they'd sue linux users for liking it over windows.

theyre simply realizing linux is the superior....


and, as to go with the thread, i preferr KDE.. even at kde 1.1, which is all a 486 can handle, it takes about 1 min to load vs 3 w/ gnome. and gnome's menus are incredibly sluggish, and kde's are fast

[sasKuatch]

Originally posted by MighMos
I prefer Gnome, simply because I think it feals 'cleaner'. I get this clausterphobic fealing with KDE...then again, that was about 10 months ago (before 3.X)

I get the same thing. All those colors are just too much for me. And those tiny, pixelated icons on the menus drive me insane. It's purely disgusting. I don't like the features either, reminds me of windows. Currently, my Gnome 2.? is set up very OS Xish.

[skinner422]

out of kde and gnome i'd choose gnome. i've never had a good experience with kde for some reason. plus for some reason i think i just have some kind of prejustice against kde and 'k' apps. the wm i use it enlightenment. virtual desktops is now a must for me. i tried waimea and it was fast and pretty but too buggy for me to use for more than a couple hours. i always like trying out new wm, i think i have about dozen or so installed on my machine.

[MartinB]

I use Fluxbox myself, but when taking my computer home from uni for Easter, my family suggested we use mine as the main computer and put theirs away for a couple weeks. I set up their accounts and installed KDE so they could use it and I've got to say that I'm very impressed with how much progress as been made. The Keramik theme and Crystal icons really make KDE look amazing. Not that I would use it myself (I don't want to use it purely because it looks good), and I can't compare it to Gnome since it's been too long since I used Gnome. I do occasionally start up a VNC server running KDE when I'm in the computer labs at uni depending on what I feel like using. :)

[Exodus2001]

KDE 3.1 is the best WM ever made period.

[clane]

I'm surprised at all the praise for KDE. I used it when I first tried Linux several months ago. I gave serious thought to using it, but it kept crashing and freezing my machine.....several times a day in fact. Reminded me too much of why I stopped using Windows. It was also dog slow on my PC.

I switched to Gnome. I liked it also. It was a bit faster IMO and didn't crash. But I stopped using it also. There were some things that I wanted to do that Gnome wouldn't accomodate.

I now use WindowMaker. It's different and a little difficult to get used to, but it runs acceptably fast and accomodates they way I want to work by offering up a big plate of customization tools. It works for me.

[bwkaz]

Exodus? What?

KDE is not a window manager, it's a desktop environment.

If you want to say kwin 3.1 is the best WM ever made, then go ahead, but KDE isn't a WM. It can't possibly be the best one ever made. :p

[automatic]

KDE, Gnome, Fluxbox, Window Maker, Desktop Enviroment, KWin, Windows (not with M$) etc.

Where I can find information about those terms (in Linux context) or someone can kind enough to explain all those jargons to me.

[Exodus2001]

KDE-
http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/

Gnome-
http://www.gnome.org/intro/findout.html

Fluxbox-
http://fluxbox.sourceforge.net/

Window Maker-
http://windowmaker.org/index.html

KWin-
I ment to say Desktop Environment and said Window Manager (WM) by mistake and bwkaz was being a smart ***.:p

windows-
Is refering to the X-Windows system which is the same thing as the "windows" in Windows. You know the box with the little x in the corner that a program runs in.

[Hayl]

Originally posted by Exodus2001
windows-
Is refering to the X-Windows system which is the same thing as the "windows" in Windows. You know the box with the little x in the corner that a program runs in.

no.

XFree86 is not the same as a Window Manager. if you run XFree86 without a window manager, you can start up X apps but they will have no window decorations (i.e. max, min, close buttons, resize handles, etc). This means you won't be able to move windows around with the mouse, close them with the mouse, etc.

a Window Manager does everything that i stated above that XFree86 system does not do.

[Exodus2001]

Originally posted by Hayl
no.

XFree86 is not the same as a Window Manager. if you run XFree86 without a window manager, you can start up X apps but they will have no window decorations (i.e. max, min, close buttons, resize handles, etc). This means you won't be able to move windows around with the mouse, close them with the mouse, etc.

a Window Manager does everything that i stated above that XFree86 system does not do.

Thank for pointing that out. You know you would have an awfull hard time running any WM's in Linux without x-windows in the first place so as Obi-wan once said "so what I said is true from a certain point of view":D

[bwkaz]

Originally posted by Exodus2001
KWin-
I ment to say Desktop Environment and said Window Manager (WM) by mistake and bwkaz was being a smart ***.:p Yeah, pretty much. :D

To answer the question, though, kwin is KDE's window manager. KDE includes much more than just kwin, though (that's why it's a desktop environment -- it has a consistent UI, a set of tools to do quite a lot of things, a taskbar-type program, etc., etc.).